I don’t disagree that reparations is a poor conceptual and political framework for making educational policy. Reparations makes sense only in the context where it makes the direct victims whole, such as survivors of the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

Educational policy should be future oriented. It should focus on the fact that all children in America should have equal opportunity to attain productive lives of meaning and purpose, and that quality schooling is key to that end. In that context, we need to take note of and address the historic underfunding and underresourcing of schools that serve poor communities and communities of color, not because of the past, but because of the need to establish equity for the future.

Is investment in the poor communities the same as advocating repayment of centuries of accumulated education debt to people of color?

I, of course, am familiar with Deborah Meier’s long history of experience on these issues and it would be interesting to know what her take on this question is.

But the backers of the idea of repaying the education debt,in particular its originator, Gloria Ladson-Billings, make it clear that it is meant to be reparations for slavery, though not just for slavery but for a range of other “oppression” suffered by people of color for centuries.

The best explanation provided for this is in Ladson-Billings’ Presidential Adress at AERA a couple of years ago, which was then echoed by Ayers and Darling-Hammond. That Bill Ayers has endorsed the idea makes sense in light of his lifelong obsession with what he calls “white supremacy.” I am not sure what would motivate Darling-Hammond to endorse the idea since I am less familiar with her views than Ayers and Ladson-Billings.

But I do think that they mean something other than investing in the schools of poor communities. And I think the difference is the emphasis they place on race.

Obviously, race is an issue. But it is so obvious that one wonders why they elevate it to the #1 priority, as the Forum blueprint does.

And it is clear that Bold Approach takes, well, a different approach with much more emphasis on the wider socio-economic context that many disadvantaged children, whether or not the descendants of slaves, share.

Best,

Steve Diamond

Let me put my cards on the table. Many of the leading figures of the Forum for Education and Democracy — Deborah Meier, Pedro Noguera, Ted Sizer, to name just a few — are educators I deeply respect. Deborah Meier is a personal friend, a longtime political comrade and a stalwart friend of teacher unions.

I see nothing wrong with those four priorities, as broad as they are. There is little doubt that there has been an underinvestment in K-12 American education, especially in poor communities; that a Marshall Plan like approach to American education is needed; that the federal government should support educational innovation; and that local communities need to play a prominent role in American education.

I don’t see how you get reparations out of that agenda.

Leo

It calls for four top priorities in a new role for the federal government:

1) Federal funds to pay off the education debt that has accumulated over hundreds of years;

2) Federal funds for a new “Marshall Plan” for our schools;

3) Federal funds for educational research and innovation; and

4) Engaging and educating local communities.

How do you think this Blueprint fits with these two approaches?